Advice please: should I sue my landlord? (deposit dispute)

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

Yes there are claims out there where both have applied, otherwise it would have been pretty pointless in me quoting them!

Could you quote the cases where a tenant has received 3x the deposit as compensation even though the LL has already protected or returned the deposit prior to the hearing please?

Planner wrote: »

Its my understanding that N208 claims dont have hearing fees and allocation questionaires, I dont know this for sure, but in the various claims I have been involved in and no of, there has been the £150 fee only.

It is my understanding that where financial recompense is sought but not actually specified on the claim form (i.e. where it is left for the court to decide) then the maximum fees apply; that is certainly the case for the hearing fee.


Whichever, surely it would be cheaper to risk £65 + £75 = £140 (even allowing for non-online application and that matter does indeed go to a hearing) rather than pay out £150 filing fee?

It would be an ill- or non-advised LL that actually suffers the 3x compensation ruling. (see my earlier post as to why) As you say regarding such cases, you are "sure there are also ones out there where the tenant hasnt been successful" and thats the view of the souce I quoted which is a leading property law website, the editor of which is now a judge, just the type who may indeed be presiding over such a case.

Planner

Premier wrote: »

Could you quote the cases where a tenant has received 3x the deposit as compensation even though the LL has already protected or returned the deposit prior to the hearing please?

Have a Google!

Aurore_2

Thanks a lot Planner and Primer for all your comments! This becomes very interesting actually. Whatever the next steps/results, I'll keep you informed!

All three schemes with whom I checked whether the deposit was protected told me that this restropect protection is not valid anyway, because of the 14 days rule.
A Shelter legal advice person also told me that he knows a case where the protection was done restrospectively after the LL repossessed the flat (it was apparently a more complicated case - I will be sent the case in a few days) and the Court ordered the compensation.

I was more than reasonable during the negotiations with the LL and during the whole tenancy. I guess I could show evidence (letters, emails) of my goodwill to the Court. But I now feel that I have to get compensated for all the badwill I got in return for my goodwill! Sorry if it is not clear: now, somehow, it becomes a matter of principles.

What, in your opinion would constitute evidence of "unreasonable" behaviour from my part in the court's eyes? What would be the risks?

If the fees are £150 or £200, I should take the risk, no? What would you do if you were me?

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

Have a Google!

Good idea!

I found this case by a MSE'er who also discovered the hard way

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1077075

Premier_2

Aurore wrote: »

...A Shelter legal advice person also told me that he knows a case where the protection was done restrospectively after the LL repossessed the flat (it was apparently a more complicated case - I will be sent the case in a few days) and the Court ordered the compensation. ...

If it's the one I'm thinking of, there really was a lot more to it

(and not because the landlord had deducted delapidation costs from the deposit before returning the remainder)

Planner

Premier wrote: »

Good idea!

I found this case by a MSE'er who also discovered the hard way

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1077075

As I said ;

There are lots of TDS cases out there Aurore where the tenancy has ended and the former tenant successfully sued for the x3 compensation (im sure there are also ones out there where the tenant hasnt been successful).

Now your original point was that as the poster is no longer a tenant and the deposit has been returned, they can not claim. Your link above concerns retrospective compliance which we have already agreed can be a grey area.

However (I have underlined the two relevant potions for you which relate to retrospective claims and claims where the person is no longer a tenant);

TENANCY DEPOSIT CASE (S213 HA 2004)

Stankova v. Glassonbury 10th March 2008, Gloucester County Court

The claimant Ms Stankova is from Bulgaria and took a private tenancy with Mr Glassonbury on 1.8.07. She was a joint tenant with her daughter and another tenant (unknown to her before start of tenancy).

The tenants jointly paid a deposit of £600 in order to move in. The landlord did not notify any of the tenants that he had deposited the money in any of the statutory Schemes at any time.

There were various problems with the landlord and he served notice on 2.10.07. The notice was defective. The third tenant moved out of property shortly afterwards and the three tenants made arrangements about how the deposit would be dealt with on its return.

On 28.10.07 the landlord entered the property and removed a carpet and the fireplace from the lounge making it unusable and also pulled the extractor fan out of kitchen leaving a hole in roof. The Council dealt with the harassment. The landlord promptly served a further notice November 2007 under s21 which was on the face of it a valid notice.

Ms Stankova moved out in Feb 2008. She made a claim under the Housing Act 2004 against the landlord for his failure to notify her within 14 days of how he would deal with the deposit and which scheme he was using.

The landlord submitted various arguments against the claim; that the tenant owed some rent arrears, that he had now placed the deposit in a scheme and that there was damage at the property for which he would wish to withhold some or all of the deposit.

At the hearing of the matter District Judge Singleton ordered the landlord to pay £1800 +£75 costs in respect of three times the deposit plus the court fee.

In awarding the monies, the judge accepted the tenant’s argument that the award was a strict liability penalty, and that consequently there was no provision for counterclaim for outstanding rent arrears or other arguments about the return or retention of the deposit on the basis that a statutory scheme included arbitration for disputed about returning or retaining deposit monies.

Premier_2

Yes that was the case I was thinking of that involved quite a bit more than refusing to return the deposit.

It was discussed in the thread I earlier linked to.

i.e.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1077075

Planner

Premier wrote: »

Yes that was the case I was thinking of that involved quite a bit more than refusing to return the deposit.

Im sure it did! never the less the deposit was returned and the x3 awarded despite the claimant no longer being a tenant and despite the deposit being subsequently protected.

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

Im sure it did! never the less the deposit was returned and the x3 awarded despite the claimant no longer being a tenant and despite the deposit being subsequently protected.

So you haven't read the thread? Perhaps you should, especially post#23;)
(and of course post#1)

Planner

Premier wrote: »

So you haven't read the thread? Perhaps you should, especially post#23;)
(and of course post#1)

Yes very intersting;

Post 1) - the O/P lost their case, had already read that

Post 23) - you quoting the x2 decisions that the thread was aware of.

So whats your point?